If I were given a chance to violate a provision in the bill of rights, I will choose this provision: Section 3.

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings. In the case of Salcedo v. Court of Appeals, the wife suspected that her husband is cheating on her, thus, she rummaged around in search of pieces of evidence which can prove her suspicion. She even tape-recorded conversations made by her husband with his paramour. After gathering these pieces of evidence, she filed an annulment suit against her husband and offered these pieces of evidence in court. The court, citing the above-stated provision of the Bill of Rights, declared the evidence inadmissible. If I were given the same circumstances, I will do same. I will violate the above provision if I have reasonable grounds to believe that something is just not right. Not only in circumstances such as the aforementioned case would I violate Section 3 of the Bill of Rights but more so on graver cases. The Hello Garci Scandal triggered a lot of opinion. Some wise, some otherwise. The case poses the issue of whether or not there was a violation of the right to privacy of communication. The case is still pending but the fact that this matter was brought to the attention of the public, our legislators should now be thinking of refining Section 3 of the Bill of Rights so that the truth will prevail. W Jeremy Bentham, a known philosopher, said that what is useful is good, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results. If many would be benefited in violation of Section 3 of the Bill of Rights, then for me, it is a forgivable offense.